Michael Finney
New
haven't you and james ridyard hashed out stack and tilt "jeff mann" style.....? i'm surprised that you aren't sure about the science
I guess I am Confused
- Thread starter ggsjpc
- Start date
- Status
haven't you and james ridyard hashed out stack and tilt "jeff mann" style.....? i'm surprised that you aren't sure about the science
self-mastery
New
I still don't understand how science/trackman can "blow up a method". Someone explain it to me. I just see semantics and an argument over what is optimal.
If a method says learn to hit down and right 9 degrees right of target and that actually means all shots are a duck-hook, is that a blow-up? If a method says use some method to get a "heavy hit" and there is no such thing, is that a blow-up? If a method says people are just swingers or just hitters and the science says all golfers who hit a 7-iron more than 125 yards are both and people spend hours and hours trying to figure out which type they are, is that a blow-up? If science says all pro golfers shift their weight significantly and a method says 'don't shift" and play off the left leg as if you were a stork, is that a blow-up?
I think actual science can blow up many methodologies that are based on faux science.
Last edited:
gmbtempe
New
Pretty interesting............so I wonder how much Neal, and I see Cheetham's work was used, are these two guys involved in developing McLean's theories and recommendations on using the X Factor as the ideal way for golfers to increase swing speed and power?
self-mastery
New
Even with faux science, all of the camps you indirectly listed do a good job at improving the games of their students. They all have good results, they have tour players, and Joe Blows that improve under them. In my myopic world that is all that matters.
Wrong science can often lead to good instruction and correct science can often lead to poor instruction.I think the quest for correct science is admirable but at the end of the day,good instruction boils down more to art than science.Students don't learn the golf swing by knowing the correct science.They learn the swing by knowing the correct feel(for them).
An example of wrong science but good instruction is STLOC.It may be wrong scientifically but as a feel,can you say it is wrong?
Snapping the kinetic chain maybe the correct science but I think if you started teaching students to brake their pivots to snap the chain,you are asking for trouble.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Ba-BlOOOOOM!!!!
For the 1001st time, there is what the teacher says, what the student thinks the teacher said, and what the student actually does.
Mandrin pointed out to me than ANY particular golfer MIGHT play better with a non-scientifally optimum swing.
Like I have said a lot in the past week, nobody says Leadbetter's stuff is dead-on scientific, and he has taught MULTIPLE major winners.
So, having said that, I couldn't care less if the Tripod camp teaches their students to straighten both legs at impact. As long they don;t say it is SCIENTIFIC TO DO IT!! I only have problem if they try to sell a lie—like the book being perfect, or only having minuscule mistakes. That is just NOT the truth and I am all about the truth. I also didn't like them saying that my stuff is sub-obtimum. I know for a fact that it is WAY MORE scientifically correct then what they teach. At least I didn't run from TrackMan and swing a ping putter 45° to the right and say that the D-Plane was wrong.
Same with the Stack & Tilters. A "revolution." "Charlie, the rules were wrong. The ball starts on the face." Throwing their ex-students under the bus. Saying there way is perfect and never admitting that they DID NOT CHANGE ANYTHING when they found out that the pattern was at least somewhat based on 2D stills with parallax issue and the no IDEA of the HSP or the resultant path.
I learn from everyone, and I give credit. I also admit defeat, bad teaching, bad science, etc.
If a guy says you can swing a club 11° inside-out and hit a straight ball at the target, then SCIENCE & TRACKMAN PROVES THEM WRONG.
Two NOTED swing "experts" sais just that at a seminar.
THAT'S what can be proven wrong.
Among other silly statements and ideas.
For the 1001st time, there is what the teacher says, what the student thinks the teacher said, and what the student actually does.
Mandrin pointed out to me than ANY particular golfer MIGHT play better with a non-scientifally optimum swing.
Like I have said a lot in the past week, nobody says Leadbetter's stuff is dead-on scientific, and he has taught MULTIPLE major winners.
So, having said that, I couldn't care less if the Tripod camp teaches their students to straighten both legs at impact. As long they don;t say it is SCIENTIFIC TO DO IT!! I only have problem if they try to sell a lie—like the book being perfect, or only having minuscule mistakes. That is just NOT the truth and I am all about the truth. I also didn't like them saying that my stuff is sub-obtimum. I know for a fact that it is WAY MORE scientifically correct then what they teach. At least I didn't run from TrackMan and swing a ping putter 45° to the right and say that the D-Plane was wrong.
Same with the Stack & Tilters. A "revolution." "Charlie, the rules were wrong. The ball starts on the face." Throwing their ex-students under the bus. Saying there way is perfect and never admitting that they DID NOT CHANGE ANYTHING when they found out that the pattern was at least somewhat based on 2D stills with parallax issue and the no IDEA of the HSP or the resultant path.
I learn from everyone, and I give credit. I also admit defeat, bad teaching, bad science, etc.
If a guy says you can swing a club 11° inside-out and hit a straight ball at the target, then SCIENCE & TRACKMAN PROVES THEM WRONG.
Two NOTED swing "experts" sais just that at a seminar.
THAT'S what can be proven wrong.
Among other silly statements and ideas.
Michael Finney
New
Book literalists.......will you be ok if chapter 2 doesn't survive mid October?
If it doesn't survive, what are the marching orders from your leader?
If it doesn't survive, what are the marching orders from your leader?
ggsjpc
New
Disappointed
Next time, I'll clear my friendships for you ahead of time so I'm not disappointed.
Next time, I'll clear my friendships for you ahead of time so I'm not disappointed.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Next time, I'll clear my friendships for you ahead of time so I'm not disappointed.
Now I'm confused.
What did you and your boy think about the science?
ggsjpc
New
As I mentioned, I don't know about the science.
As I also mentioned, I don't honestly care.
Does James? I would imagine but I've never asked him.
Michael Finney
New
Next time, I'll clear my friendships for you ahead of time so I'm not disappointed.
clear friendships???...are you kidding me.....
you are the second biggest "question asker" in internet golf land (of course, you pale in comparison to dr. jeff mann -you aren't in his galaxy)....
i assumed incorrectly that you had questioned ridyard about the mechanical advantages of s&t...sorry to jump to conclusions
trickyric67
New
this is getting a little thick, but I thought the question was reasonable anf Brians answer was exact and concise. I don't really get why this is getting so heated.
Michael Finney
New
i would like an answer from someone....if certain parts of chapter 2 are turned upside down in phoenix, how does that affect the teachers who regard the book as infallible...will they agree to look at the conclusions?...will they change their approach?
or will it be status quo?
or will it be status quo?
ggsjpc
New
Thank you for the apology.
Take it from the second biggest "question asker" in the internet golf land, asking questions helps avoid situations like this.
trickyric67
New
from the unfortunately painful time I spent with one of them, I am sure the answer is "no friggin way" and then back on to their own little worlds. Having said that, it really doesn't matter because students like myself sought out people like Brian because we want to get the best and not the rest.
Ric
Ric
- Status